Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Big Bend to pause Bridal Athletic Complex over lighting, traffic and property-value concerns
Summary
Dozens of residents and an attorney told the board the proposed Bridal Athletic Complex poses risks to property values, quiet neighborhoods and safety, citing lighting trespass, traffic impacts, estimated infrastructure costs and requests for forensic accounting; the board approved a PUD but emphasized phased review.
Dozens of residents and a local attorney used the board’s public-comment period to urge a pause or denial of the Bridal Athletic Complex, citing consistent concerns about lighting intrusion, traffic and the project’s long-term cost to the village and neighboring properties.
Several speakers described personal impacts. Cindy Thomas, representing the 3 Villages Association, asked the board to pause and requested a forensic accounting, saying the village did not have correct financials and warning the infrastructure burden would be shared by the region while private profits would accrue to the developer.
Other residents described direct harms: John Fletcher said current light poles already inundate parts of his property and asked the board to consider the photos included in the packet; Diana Perrigo said a realtor’s valuation had already shifted and warned the project could erode her retirement savings; James Trower and Jim Spicco highlighted insufficient local demand for the complex, potential strains on police and fire services, and the additional recurring costs the village might face.
An attorney representing an association summarized an evidentiary letter and reassessment evidence, saying one nearby property had already been reassessed down roughly $60,000 and presenting photos of glare at comparable facilities as evidence that the board should deny or at least pause approvals.
Board and staff response: Planners and staff repeatedly told residents the PUD is a zoning framework, not an authorization to build, and said phase-specific CUPs and site-plan reviews will require additional studies (stormwater, traffic impact analysis, DNR permits, WisDOT or town roadway approvals). The planner also noted performance-based lighting standards in the zoning code and that any phase exceeding the recorded PUD parameters would require an amendment and additional public hearing.
What residents asked for: Forensic accounting of public infrastructure costs, limits on lighting tower heights and hours of operation, enforceable guarantees that the developer would fund any required utility extensions, and closer scrutiny of potential property-value impacts.
What the board said: Board members said they considered the public record and planner recommendations; they approved the PUD with conditions but emphasized that each phase will return for CUP and site-plan review where lighting, hours, traffic mitigation and utilities will be addressed.
Next steps: Residents will be able to participate in upcoming CUP and site-plan hearings for each phase; the board’s PUD approval requires the developer to record a general development plan and permits village review of future phase-specific technical studies.
